News Islamification of Britain

[old.Tohtori]

No-one believes in gravity because we experience it and its experimentally demonstrable.

Even if lately it was said that gravity isn't because of the earth pulling us in, but because of a temporal displacement field or some such that's pushing us against earth

Science is even weirder to believe in as it's all just guesses

 

[Raven]

I very much doubt a real scientist said that.

Gravity doesn't just happen on Earth, or only affect small things like stuff on Earth, it affects planets, solar systems and galaxies.

 

[rynnor]

Well - no-one should believe in science per se - if its science it shouldnt require faith.

Its still a work in progress - every so often a cherished theory gets kicked out and we gain a new understanding. But we still have no real answers for big questions like the origin of the Universe.

 

[Krazeh]

Krazeh - you're ofcourse right that there's no proof, no more then of unicorns or fairies(not saying there aren't any ), but then again there doesn't have to be. You choose what you believe, everyone does, be it real or not.

Of course people believe what they want to believe, whether it's real or not, but that doesn't mean that when viewing things in a rational, critical manner we have to take the view that the possibility of something existing must be maintained when there's absolutely zero evidence for it existing.

I don't have any proof of pluto existing(afterall, it could just be some guys making sh*t up), but there ya go.

Except you can goto an observatory and actually see Pluto through a powerful enough telesope.

This is dawkins arguement but unless you can provide proofs either way its just an unproveable theory = belief.

Atheism being a lack of belief is Dawkin's argument? Since when? I don't hold any belief about the existence of God at all. My views on God are a lack of belief in his existence, not a belief in his existence or non-existence.

Again tho I have to ask why God is given special dispensation with regards to his "existence" where we are told we have to accept that he might exist on the basis that there is no evidence that he doesn't despite there also being absolutely no evidence that he does. It's a nonsense argument to claim that something exists which you can't prove but to then also claim that noone can say it doesn't exist because they can't find evidence against it. I would however dispute the claims that there is no evidence for the non-existence of God anyway, there's plenty of evidence all around us to demonstrate how the world, solar system, universe etc operates all without the intervention of a deity.

No-one believes in gravity because we experience it and its experimentally demonstrable.

What? I've read this a few times and still can't understand what you're trying to say? Surely people believe in gravity because we can experience it and if necessary can demonstrate it experimentally, not the other way around.

 

[Chronictank]

Tell that to the people in Africa dying of AIDs because their religion says that condoms are sinful. Or the people killed by suicide bombers who believe they are doing their God's will. Or the thirteen year old child the BBC did a documentary on who had been so indoctrinated into religion she was in tears describing how everyone, including herself, was probably going to go to hell.
.

It's a stupid argument because you can use the exact same one for hundreds of other things 'you' (as in the masses) regard as the right thing

For example how many people have died bringing 'democracy' to a country, should democracy be eradicated in the same way? after all people are fighting over it. If you want to use a very shallow argument and ignore the root causes behind the conflicts its exactly the same thing.

Even the crusades weren't soley because of religion if you read up on them..

 

[rynnor]

What? I've read this a few times and still can't understand what you're trying to say? Surely people believe in gravity because we can experience it and if necessary can demonstrate it experimentally, not the other way around.

Yes but what I did think about adding was that you dont have to believe in other effects that cant be experienced by humans but are experimentally provable. But if you have something that cant be experienced or proven its a belief.

 

[Krazeh]

It's a stupid argument because you can use the exact same one for hundreds of other things 'you' (as in the masses) regard as the right thing

For example how many people have died bringing 'democracy' to a country, should democracy be eradicated in the same way? after all people are fighting over it. If you want to use a very shallow argument and ignore the root causes behind the conflicts its exactly the same thing.

Even the crusades weren't soley because of religion if you read up on them..

What does any of that have to do with the things I stated being evidence of harm that religion has brought to people? Just because other things can cause harm to people doesn't alter the fact that people have, and are, harmed by religion.

Yes but what I did think about adding was that you dont have to believe in other effects that cant be experienced by humans but are experimentally provable. But if you have something that cant be experienced or proven its a belief.

Again what? I'm really still not getting what you're trying to say. You don't have to believe in things that can't be experienced but can be experimentally proven? Well yes, you don't have to believe in anything if you don't want to. It also sounds like you're using belief as a synonym for faith, you can have a belief in something without it being faith; they are not the same thing.

 

[rynnor]

I would however dispute the claims that there is no evidence for the non-existence of God anyway, there's plenty of evidence all around us to demonstrate how the world, solar system, universe etc operates all without the intervention of a deity.

We have copernican physics (yay) but we cannot explain the expansion of the universe without inventing stuff that cant be measured or seen but is out there to bolster the figures.

I'm not saying we wont one day in the far future be able to show how everything happened without some external force but I would say we certainly cannot prove that at this time.

 

[Chronictank]

What does any of that have to do with the things I stated being evidence of harm that religion has brought to people? Just because other things can cause harm to people doesn't alter the fact that people have, and are, harmed by religion.

You just happened to be the easiest to quote at the time following the same sort of argument,

The point i was making is why are you singling out religion (incorrectly by the way, the AIDS situation would have controlled itself if they were proper Christians in the first place rather than following parts of what someone says ) when there are just as many things completely unrelated to it doing just as much, if not more, harm.

 

[rynnor]

If you cannot prove something experimentally its a belief in my book - faith is a term I would reserve for religious beliefs but you can believe in anything - it doesnt have to be about religion.

 

[Krazeh]

We have copernican physics (yay) but we cannot explain the expansion of the universe without inventing stuff that cant be measured or seen but is out there to bolster the figures.

Inventing stuff like what exactly?

I'm not saying we wont one day in the far future be able to show how everything happened without some external force but I would say we certainly cannot prove that at this time.

So because we don't have the full picture just yet we should just fill in the gaps with fairytales? If you want to bring an external force to the table as a mechanism for the creation or maintenance of the universe then you also need to supply evidence for that, not stick it on the table and go "it must have been this because you can't prove it wasn't".

You just happened to be the easiest to quote at the time following the same sort of argument,

The point i was making is why are you singling out religion (incorrectly by the way, the AIDS situation would have controlled itself if they were proper Christians in the first place rather than following parts of what someone says ) when there are just as many things completely unrelated to it doing just as much, if not more, harm.

The reason I was "singling" out religion is I was responding to Toht's claim that harm caused by religion was something made up by anti-religious people and in most cases wasn't real. Also I don't see that blaming religion is wrong in the case of AIDs in Africa, it's patently obvious to anyone viewing the situation that condoms would improve the situation out there yet for many years the catholic church were adamant that their followers should not use them. That's not to say that maintaining monogamous relationships and not engaging in sexual relationships with multiple partners wouldn't also help but just because the Church preaches those things doesn't get them off from also telling people to not use condoms.

If you cannot prove something experimentally its a belief in my book - faith is a term I would reserve for religious beliefs but you can believe in anything - it doesnt have to be about religion.

Of course it's a belief, but there's a big difference between a belief in something that you can provide a rational, logical argument for based on evidence from previous experimentation, mathematical models etc and a belief in something that is based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence or the say-so of some individual or organisation.

 

[Chronictank]

The reason I was "singling" out religion is I was responding to Toht's claim that harm caused by religion was something made up by anti-religious people and in most cases wasn't real. Also I don't see that blaming religion is wrong in the case of AIDs in Africa, it's patently obvious to anyone viewing the situation that condoms would improve the situation out there yet for many years the catholic church were adamant that their followers should not use them. That's not to say that maintaining monogamous relationships and not engaging in sexual relationships with multiple partners wouldn't also help but just because the Church preaches those things doesn't get them off from also telling people to not use condoms.

I think you will find they backtracked on that, which essentially 'let's them off'

 

[Olgaline]

I'm generally Ok with it here in DK, for this following reason:

They get:

We get:

 

[rynnor]

Inventing stuff like what exactly?

Dark matter - its basically an invisible fudge that fixes the copernican equations so that they match the reality we can perceive with powerful telescopes.

So because we don't have the full picture just yet we should just fill in the gaps with fairytales?

Thats exactly what we have done its just that if you give them pseudo scientific names like dark matter people tend to accept them coming as they are from supposed scientists The more extreme theories of quantum physics make belief in god look a small thing tbh. The only truthful answer about this stuff is we dont know.

 

[Krazeh]

I think you will find they backtracked on that, which essentially 'let's them off'

They've made a minor concession about the use of condoms in claiming it's a 'lesser evil' but it doesn't let them off in any way for the many years that they preached against their use.

Dark matter - its basically an invisible fudge that fixes the copernican equations so that they match the reality we can perceive with powerful telescopes.

Dark matter isn't just some fudge they came up with to fill in the gaps, it's a theory that's come about from seeing that what we observe doesn't match up with what were current mathematical models on how things should look. We can infer from what we can see that there should be more mass out there than there appears to be, there needs to be a reason for that. What would you suggest we do instead of coming up with new theories to explain the errors in existing theories/mathematical models?

Thats exactly what we have done its just that if you give them pseudo scientific names like dark matter people tend to accept them coming as they are from supposed scientists The more extreme theories of quantum physics make belief in god look a small thing tbh. The only truthful answer about this stuff is we dont know.

And you know that none of this is based on existing proven frameworks? And is just a bunch of stuff made up by scientists to fill in the gaps? Or is it just that you, and I and most other people, don't actually understand things like quantum mechanics or the vast amount of mathematics and experimental work it's based on?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I very much doubt a real scientist said that.

Gravity doesn't just happen on Earth, or only affect small things like stuff on Earth, it affects planets, solar systems and galaxies.

Ofcourse it does, but i was talking about earth as earth gravity is really the only thing anyone can observe/prove. That was told to not be because earth is pulling us, but because a displacement field(or some other scifi term like that) was pushing us. Earth basically creates a sphere that pushes us in.

Of course people believe what they want to believe, whether it's real or not, but that doesn't mean that when viewing things in a rational, critical manner we have to take the view that the possibility of something existing must be maintained when there's absolutely zero evidence for it existing.

Except you can goto an observatory and actually see Pluto through a powerful enough telesope.

Funny quote in a show regarding your first part; as a scientist, we should ask the "what if". When viewing things that require proven aspects to be taken into consideration, ofcourse non-proven ideas aren't necessary to include, but simply because something has no proof, doesn't mean it needs to be eradicated. Take santy claus as an example

About pluto, just an example. Photos from mars could be another hoax. You can't really test that.

 

[Ch3tan]

No, rynnor is right. But you are missing his point.

Scientists believe in dark matter, they haven't yet been able to prove it. Like so many things in science it's a theory and it explains away holes in other theories. That's the good thing about science, nothing is sacred and theories need to be proven. Unlike religion.

It's not quite stuff that is made up, but it's the best explanation that they can give at the moment. It doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean they can prove it.

 

[Ch3tan]

Ofcourse it does, but i was talking about earth as earth gravity is really the only thing anyone can observe/prove. That was told to not be because earth is pulling us, but because a displacement field(or some other scifi term like that) was pushing us. Earth basically creates a sphere that pushes us in.
.

Erm.... no. My understanding is limited but actually I'm sure the effects of gravity can be observed in the galaxy and universe as well. You need Lamp here to swipe aside your "opinions" on this, because to me, it sounds like a loud of twaddle.

 

[Ezteq]

Job and Co. get your knickers in twist quick, we are targetting your Women!!

Surge in Britons converting to Islam - Telegraph

DoooooooOoooooooom!!

the state my hair was in this morning I could of done with wearing one of those cover everything dresses the muslim women wear.

It makes me laugh when people moan about them saying 'ooh when I see someone wearing one of those it's a real barrier, you just don't want to talk to people in the street wearing one' I think to myself, well I'm wearing jeans and a t shirt and you probably wouldn;t talk to me just randomly if you saw me on the street either.

People are very odd!!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Erm.... no. My understanding is limited but actually I'm sure the effects of gravity can be observed in the galaxy and universe as well. You need Lamp here to swipe aside your "opinions" on this, because to me, it sounds like a loud of twaddle.

Oh for f*cks sake it's the pedantic crew

No one said gravity is JUST for earth, i just said that it's funny how gravity on earth has changed to a force pushing us in.

And you can't bloody well test the gravity on mars now can you? Or please, do prove me wrong by taking a picture of you dropping an apple on the face of mars

Oh and look, another perfectly nice discussion about religion ruined by these SCIENCE folk. Gawd.

 

[Ch3tan]

Pedantic? You are saying something about gravity that to my mind isn't true.. that's why I'd like someone more science minded to decipher what you mean.

How does that ruin any discussion? You are a being a twat for no reason toht.

 

[Krazeh]

No one said gravity is JUST for earth, i just said that it's funny how gravity on earth has changed to a force pushing us in.

It hasn't changed at all. Well not unless you listen to crazy people.

 

[Lamp]

Mars and Earth have diameters of 6775 and 12775 km respectively. The mass of Mars is 0.107 times that of Earth. The acceleration due to gravity at the surface of a planet varies directly as the mass and inversely as the square of the radius. This folllows directly from Newton's law of universal gravitation. This makes the gravitational acceleration on Mars gm=9.8*0.107*(12775/6775)2 = 3.73m/s/s. The weight of an object is its mass (m)times the acceleration of gravity. Anyone down at the surface of Mars experiences lower gravity.

 

[old.Tohtori]

How does that ruin any discussion? You are a being a twat for no reason toht.

Lighten up you uptight twat, it was a joke to what Raven said earlier.

It hasn't changed at all. Well not unless you listen to crazy people.

Never claimed it did, just that the definition has. Understanding and all that.

 

[Lethul]

Oh for f*cks sake it's the pedantic crew

No one said gravity is JUST for earth, i just said that it's funny how gravity on earth has changed to a force pushing us in.

And you can't bloody well test the gravity on mars now can you? Or please, do prove me wrong by taking a picture of you dropping an apple on the face of mars

Oh and look, another perfectly nice discussion about religion ruined by these SCIENCE folk. Gawd.

I'm pretty sure the Mars landing robots did stay on the ground at Mars!

 

[Ch3tan]

But it hasn't changed... the definition that is. I'm sure people have been questioning this since you first mentioned it. Can you please provide the source for this?

 

[old.Tohtori]

But it hasn't changed... the definition that is. I'm sure people have been questioning this since you first mentioned it. Can you please provide the source for this?

Nah, i'm not really arsed since you came along Mister Nofun

 

[Krazeh]

Never claimed it did, just that the definition has. Understanding and all that.

As Ch3tan says, the definition hasn't changed at all. Well not unless you listen to crazy people.

 

[Ch3tan]

Nah, i'm not really arsed since you came along Mister Nofun

So what you are saying is; you made it up?

Glad we cleared that up.

Krazeh, ignoring the fluff, did you see the post I made regarding Rynnors points?

 

[old.Tohtori]

So what you are saying is; you made it up?

Glad we cleared that up.

No, but you do what you always do, read what you want

Seriously though,m i just like f*ckign with you since you take things way too serious

I just heard that there's some theory floating about of the earth creating a field of some sort and it affecting our gravity more *shrug* It was just a random toss into this pile of random bullsh*t that this thread has become.

Edspecialyl since it continues last years tradition of people just answering what they can rip apart, rather silly conversations really and part reason why i don't bother with them too seriously.